Paul Wilkins wrote:
> it makes no sense to have a citation all by itself.
>> As time goes on, people have been using the cite element for more and
> more inappropriate uses.
I agree with you there. But the abuse I see is more along the lines
of using the CITE element where a Q or BLOCKQUOTE would be more
appropriate.
> The developers understand this and have been
> providing more accurate descriptions of how the CITE element is to be
> used.
>> HTML 5 says the following
Um. That's HTML 5. I'm talking about today's specs. As Scott says:
> HTML 5 isn't necessarily a definitive source on semantics in HTML 4
> and XHTML
That said, I take your point that using the CITE element to mark up a
person/place/thing/object without any context is really pushing it. I
think you're right when you say:
>> <cite>Gone With The Wind</cite> is a film.
>> You could say it, but you'll be wrong.
However, I don't think that every use of the CITE element *requires*
an accompanying citation (using Q or BLOQCKQUOTE). I think that Scott
is write when he says that context is the key criteria:
> A source is where something comes from, so we have to have that
> something in order for the referenced object to be a source. That
> something isn't necessarily a specific quote, but it has to be at
> least a vague description.
So, for the case that sparked off this discussion—mentioning people
in blog posts—I think the CITE element will often be appropriate:
I was chatting with <cite>Tantek</cite> yesterday.
That, in my opinion, is appropriate (though it's certainly on the edge).
That would probably be marked up as a hyperlink in a blog post:
I was chatting with <cite><a href="http://tantek.com/">Tantek</a></
cite> yesterday.
Then there's the use of ABBR that Thom was talking about for
mentioning friends by their first names:
I was chatting with <cite><abbr title="Tantek Çelik"><a rel="friend
met colleague" href="http://tantek.com/">Tantek</a></abbr></cite>
yesterday.
Which is easily turned into an hCard:
I was chatting with <cite class="vcard"><abbr class="fn"
title="Tantek Çelik"><a class="url" rel="friend met colleague"
href="http://tantek.com/">Tantek</a></abbr></cite> yesterday.
So, quick straw poll: does that look a reasonable use of the CITE
element? Does anything think that SPAN would be a better/safer option
in this case? I suppose it would probably depend on the rest of the
paragraph or blog post but usually you wouldn't mention someone in a
blog post without some reason that probably involves referencing
them, right?
Michael MD wrote:
>> The CITE element is not a CITATION element.
> no wonder I don't see it used very often -- that is too confusing
> for people in the real world!
Agreed. It's as confusing as the ADDRESS element.
Bye,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Keith
a d a c t i o
http://adactio.com/